01 October 2017 12:53 AM

If the Royal Navy's so 'vital', why have you wrecked it, Theresa?

This is Peter Hitchens's Mail on Sunday column

Do the Government want to lose the Falkland Islands again? They seem to be planning hard for this, or another military humiliation. I am astonished at the lack of outrage and protest over the current vandalism being visited on our Armed Forces.

This sort of behaviour always leads to bad and even tragic results.

Last Sunday my colleague Mark Nicol drew attention to an especially crazy aspect of this, affecting the Royal Navy. I have pointed out here before that the Navy is in a tragic state.

But the latest move is quite straightforwardly mad. HMS Ocean, the current fleet flagship, is so central to the Navy’s operations that the Prime Minister paid a visit to her in the Gulf last December, and spoke warmly to the ship’s company.

She said: ‘Here on HMS Ocean all of you are a vital part of Britain’s global mission… and you can be very proud of everything you are doing.’

All I can say to the Navy is hold on to your tin hats if the PM ever says anything nice to you again. She would have been more honest if she’d just said: ‘Goodbye!’

For, four months after this flag-brandishing oration, Mrs May’s Government put the ‘vital’ HMS Ocean up for sale.

The Brazilian Navy revealed in April that it is close to buying her for about £80 million.

In return for that – a ripple in Whitehall’s ocean of debt – we will lose the only ship we have which can mount a large-scale amphibious operation.

Just how ridiculous is this? In current values, the huge and versatile helicopter carrier cost about £300 million when she was launched from a British shipyard in 1995.

She is not worn out or ancient. In 2014 she completed an 18-month refit costing another £71 million of your money. I am sure the Brazilian Navy will be very grateful that we have taken such good care of her for them. Only weeks ago she was doing useful work in hurricane relief.

I rang the Ministry of Defence. Their once-mighty press office now repels callers by diverting them to an answering machine which takes no messages and cuts you off.

But with much persistence I got through, and asked this simple question: ‘Are you mad?’ I got no proper answer to this query, only some strange bureaucratic babble.

Iam reminded irresistibly of John Nott’s 1981 Defence Review, in which the carrier Invincible was to be flogged off to Australia and the carrier Hermes, along with the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid, were to be scrapped. The patrol ship Endurance was to be withdrawn from the South Atlantic.

If the Argentines had the sense to wait for us to complete this money-grubbing scheme, most of the Task Force used to retake the Falklands would have been sold or scrapped, and the Argentine flag would fly over Port Stanley to this day.

I wouldn’t mind so much if the Tories didn’t pretend to be patriotic. You’d understand it if Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Livingstone wanted to do this sort of thing. It would be just as wrong, but it wouldn’t be so creepily dishonest.

Next time you hear Mrs May or any of her Ministers thumping the patriotic tub, think of HMS Ocean.

I have long wanted to settle an old score with Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry but didn’t bother because she seemed to be such a minor figure.

Some years ago, on BBC’s Question Time, she exploded into a purple mist of phoney outrage, claiming falsely that I had stigmatised her as coming from a ‘problem family’.

She announced loudly on TV that she had been raised in a fatherless family on a council estate by a mother on benefits. She implied that her mother had been single. To wild applause, she demanded of me: ‘How dare you say that single parents living in council estates are by definition problem families?’

I’d said no such thing. But I left it at that. But now Ms Thornberry, right, is beginning to loom and swell a bit on the political stage. She could shortly be a Cabinet Minister if the Tories continue to destroy themselves. So we need to know a bit more about her. She thinks so, too, and last week she elaborated on her misery memoir in a Left-wing newspaper.

She didn’t quite say she had to hop to school because she only had one clog. But she did say the Thornberrys were so broke that they had to put down their cats. This is undoubtedly very sad, especially for the cats.

But then, at last, she slipped out the truth about her so-called ‘fatherless family’. It was anything but fatherless. Ms Thornberry’s mother was anything but single.

Little Emily’s tragedy was not the fault of the wicked Tories or of cruel capitalists. It was the work of a bloviating, high-principled human rights obsessive, pro-immigration lobbyist and equality fanatic, Ms Thornberry’s parent, Cedric.

In 1966, two years before deserting his wife and three small children, Cedric Thornberry tried (and failed) to become Labour MP for Guildford. In his campaign leaflet, he posed in front of a marble fireplace, boasting of his family, his Cambridge degree, his legal career and his work for the Foreign Office.

But within a few short months, Cedric Thornberry had betrayed his wife and young children, and fathered a child by another woman. He left them penniless and skedaddled abroad to avoid being forced to take responsibility.

He ended up in a top job at the UN.

In his long absence doing more important things, the council rehoused his family, and Ms Thornberry’s mother Sallie became a much-loved mayor of Guildford. Whatever misfortunes befell young Emily were entirely her father’s doing.

My point is this. Ms Thornberry misleadingly used her misfortune to make cheap propaganda, and she should stop doing that.

And her father brilliantly typifies a certain type of socialist, who thinks he is virtuous because he says all the right things, and who is terribly concerned about the rights of immigrants, but who dumps his own wife and children on the state’s doorstep because he thinks he is too wonderful to bother with the simple task of keeping his promises.

And still we miss the point about Oxford student Lavinia Woodward, who did not go to prison after stabbing her boyfriend.

She wasn’t let off for being posh. She was let off because everyone is let off, all the time.

If Lavinia, pictured left, had been called Kayleigh and been studying GNVQs in Batley, she’d still have been let off.

A brief internet search for the words ‘knife attack’ and ‘spared jail’ found a Burnley ‘alcoholic’ who knifed her partner in the back during a row; it also found a Tyneside mother of five, maddened by cannabis, who stabbed her partner.

And there was a Sheffield man who ‘snapped and lost control’ during a feud with a neighbour, and chased him with a knife.

All were ‘spared jail’. None was posh. In fact, if you just look for the words ‘spared jail’, you’ll be amazed at what you can do and stay free.

But because people believe what they want to, nobody gets the point or does anything.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alan,

To be honest when it comes to political commentary you probably come off with about as much credibility as Harvey Weinstein now has as a film maker. Wasn't he meant to be a liberal or one they all looked up to? The pinnacle that every modern man should aspire to. Well, if people like this are in the top jobs and setting the example then all I can say is it's a sorry state of affairs. I'm sure the BBC wouldn't have put up with him though would they? Another one who could use a lesson in common sense and decency.

You previously said you weren't going to vote in the election because you weren't a fan of Corbyn but obviously you voted for Labour in the past being the 'left leaning' liberal elite you are. Am I making it up or is that what you said? You then did what any good opportunist does, such as all the New Labour lot, in rallying behind Corbyn once you realised he was more popular than you first thought. Another of your fanciful ideas due to not listening to what I said, was to affiliate me with the EDL, utter nonsense, and endlessly talk about the BNP and UKIP as if a large percentage of Brexiteers were voting from racial prejudice because they wanted control of borders but as we know this is a load of who shot John. Far from making it up Alan, the people who make it up as they go along are the Labour Party, who have no principles or policies, other than to make themselves better off and change their policies to win votes and popularity, yet fail to deliver what they say. Then we have the Conservatives who are experts at making it up as they go along in these Brexit talks, They have no plan, no vision and no integrity, in complete contrast to the person you are debating.

How do you know what I think about Corbyn. Where have I ever presented a conspiracy theory about UKIP and the BNP? I did suggest that the referendum provided a home for possibly 750k voters who previously supported the BNP (more than 500k actual votes, plus the opportunity to vote in places that did not have BNP candidates in previous elections).

Alan, "Why on earth do you think anyone who places a vote agrees with all of the views of the party concerned?"

I don't - you don't agree with all the views of Corbyn because some of them are actually well-intentioned, if completely naive and unworkable, as opposed to the purely selfish, greedy politics of Blairism. Thankfully, this hideous form of politics no longer has a party base although I'm sure you would be the first one at the ballot box if they returned. You say I make it up as I go along yet my position remains consistent. Nobody really knows what 'Alan' stands for because all he does is criticise people who he claims are right-wing, dreaming up all sorts of conspiracies about UKIP, the BNP etc while ignoring the real problems glaring him in the face, most notably that 52% of the people voted to leave the EU but that doesn't count for anything because he, and his fellow elites, know better.

We mustn't forget, of course, that the true reason for the run-down of the Royal Navy, Army and Air Force is to facilitate the transfer of equipment and personnel into private control.
Then the perpetual war they slaver over can be waged, freed from political constraint and out of the public eye, by the meanest, nastiest, most bloodthirsty savages they can hire (as they do today in the Middle East and Africa!), and, of course, we will still be bankrolling it.

Another noble reason to ditch the party political system that is enabling this takeover.

"I'm seeking details of any comment I made that stated I am against prison and prison sentences"

I never said you made a comment stating that you were against prison sentences. What I actually said is that if 'liberals' or 'Blairites' like you got your way and were still running the country then prison sentences would be evenmore feeble than they are now. If you don't like it then why do you vote for it? I'm sure that you would endorse tough prison sentences but who for? Probably ordinary working people expressing a criticism about these lame politicians and crooked bankers given your current stance on Brexit and other matters that concern your buddies in the elite.

I think it was the post where you described yourself as a left-leaning Corbyn voter. And someone who clearly backed the Labour Party until the point where you realised that there is no defending the indefensible. Hence, you now find yourself like so many in the political wilderness, searching for someone to replace your hero Blair but alas, your time has come and gone. We cannot return to the 1970's or the Iraq days - the future is now Alan - Brexit is all you have to look forward to!

David,

It's an interesting theory, IS still claim responsibility and it has been said that besides his stock of over 40 modified guns designed for use in military operations, this demented chap had recently converted to Islam. I do, however, find it hard to believe even with the seemingly miraculous powers of Islamist propaganda to brainwash the vulnerable, that this was the case, although love makes people do crazy things. I am rather more interested in the account of an eye witness who reported that 45 minutes before the shooting a woman in the crowds was going around telling people they would 'die tonight' before being thrown out by security. If this is true then either we have a real psychic on our hands or someone else was involved in this shocking crime.

The newspaper coverage of Hugh Hefner is nauseating. To me and I was about 16 when Page 3 came in, so you'll get the time frame, the bunny girls were a bit pathetic. As were Page 3 girls. That was my teenage viewpoint and it hasn't changed.
Two sorts of woman back then. I just thought they were cheapening themselves. Less intelligent and I remember one father of one was gushing about how proud he was of her appearance in the newspaper.
My dad would have done his nut!!
There was the odd Playboy magazine in the playground, the yearly motor show where naked women were used to sell cars.
Men's lockers and offices with topless women.
On the whole though the sexes had more respect than I hear the young boys have today for women and women had more respect for young men.
I look at how things have gone since and see how this stuff has filtered down to young women and can't believe they think it empowers them.
I was a teen of the 60's, liked fashion and still do, but the sights I see today. I didn't think that so many women would fall for it.
Younger and younger too.

Bill .
I was being facetious about some aspects of the Las Vegas mass murderer , I would think his motive or motives for his action will not be explained definitively , unless he has left some kind of note , with his "reasons" for doing it .
Mr Hitchens reports that the man was prescribed diazepam , He may have been a drinker , there are photos in the paper of him seemingly with alcohol , to what pitch has not been detailed , it may yet be revealed that He used recreational drugs , who can say ? He enjoyed a reasonable lifestyle , was reasonably well off by accounts , intelligent , His family are astounded by his actions . Why on earth would he do such a thing ?

David Taylor | 04 October 2017 at 11:43 AM suggests "Perhaps [the Las Vegas shooter] lost everything at the gaming tables , decided on random revenge of a sort ?"

That seems unlikely. It seems more like a carefully planned operation.

I don't think Martin was suggesting he had a link with ISIS; rather the reverse, i.e. that a mass-murderer with a political motive is a terrorist, but a mass-murderer without a political motive is not a terrorist.

I suspect his Filipino girlfriend is more likely to have been a "bought wife" than an ISIS agent.

As to the "prisoner complaining to Vodafone", as I say at every possible opportunity, the answer is to use one of the uninhabited Scottish islands as a prison - one far enough from the nearest mast that there is no signal.

Martin .
It will be interesting to see what comes out about this chaps lifestyle .
Perhaps He lost everything at the gaming tables , decided on random revenge of a sort ?
Any link with ISIS is beyond ridiculous , unless you consider that his live in girlfriend is from the Phillipines , the Phillipines have an ongoing terrorist group with Islamic tendencies , perhaps she is the fanatic ? turned this chap to the cause and was conveniently out of the country at the time . Conspiracy theorists can make hay with that , I am sure .
The penalties for law breaking of all kinds should be enforced , Prisons should be more disciplined ,a prisoner complaining to Vodafone from within prison that he cannot get decent phone coverage , Does not that make you laugh , or cry , or giggle mindlessly ? that would reduce a lot of the petty problems that plague us , the majority of the general public , who obey the rules , pay our taxes and do not cause problems for our neighbours .
One warning yes but do it again , six or twelve months , that would persuade many offenders , not all , to behave themselves

I suppose under the laws of a Labour style government the Las Vegas shooter, had he not killed himself, would probably have been out on tag in a couple of years. A sick and demented individual says Mr. Trump. Some might say it takes one to know one, what do you think?

I also cringe at the people who say why are people not calling him a terrorist. Why are we so quick to call an Islamist extremist a terrorist? Well, its quite simple really. A terrorist is someone who commits an act of terror I.e. an act which has clear political or ideological goals. When you blow up people in a suicide bomb you do so because you believe, under a certain faith, you will go to paradise. When you make video tapes or send messages on Facebook that you hate the west, have practised radical Islam, state that you are carrying out jihad, shout Allah Akbar before you kill someone, have been seen preaching radical Islam or are a regular visitor to Syria I think it could be a fair assumption to make that you are carrying out an act of terror, as influenced by the scores of other jihadists who are involved in this cult of death, regardless of whether you are acting alone on the guidance of a YouTube video or as part of a group of heavily armed militants. The warrants for jihad and persecution of the non-believer are all there in the text and acted upon by primates who thought they had God in their corner. A retired accountant who lost the plot and wanted five minutes of fame by carrying out this sick act is crazy yes, is a mass murderer yes but is he a terrorist? Not unless there's some hidden revelation I appear to have missed.

Will Kelly
You are right about the services using dated equipment , in the second world war , the Swordfish Biplane , was used right to the end of the war , outliving and serving in more roles than its intended successor , an original multi role aircraft , look for submarines , attack HUGE battleships , fly in areas where faster , more heavily armed enemy aircraft operate . I am surprised it is not being considered for HMS Queen Elizabeth , as it does not require catapult launching .

PH in reply to mackenzie 01 October 2017 at 4.50 PM, as I was born in 1954 I can remember exactly as PH describes.
I can also remember the terms, "unmarried mother" and the blurring of the descriptions, between that with chosen involuntary parenthood whose fathers had left or whose father's had died.
I never saw the Ken Loach film all through, I was a teen then I think, "Cathy come home".
As a working class girl the excerpts I've seen show 3 little ones that look under 5. To me she looks irresponsible to have kept having young when she was in no position to.
It's not good for the children. That's my working class upbringing. Don't expect others to take responsibility, when it's down to you.
Ethos has changed a bit.
I suspect why the Family allowance, my mum received and I had for my young, (not for the first child though, until the 1977 change to include them, then from ,"Family" to "Child benefit".
80's Previously, council housing was for married couples on a points basis and how Housing benefits early 80's and the Child benefit change, changed make up of estate residency.
I came form a working class family we also had a cat who had kittens, she gave birth in the kindling box in the woodshed) and my dad used to put his railway great coat on my bed in the Winter. With ice on the inside of the window, nothing unusual.
I had a favourite kitten but we couldn't keep them all so had to walk and carry it to it's new home.
I have a picture of me and friends with kittens in a basket. We all looked pretty slim then.

Ref: If the Royal Navy's so 'vital', why have you wrecked it, Theresa?
Long ago, when the idea was dreamt up about producing HMS Ocean all kinds of 'experts' from the military, politics, shipbuilders, finance would have been huddled together for many hours/days/ weeks/months/years considering/arguing for the need, cost, viability, funding, and the lifespan for such a vessel. As it obviously came to fruition there is no way that this project could have been regarded as a short term gamble. Something has gone wrong on the 'forecasts' of these experts and I would say specifically, the financial gurus won the argument based simply on monetary values which Mrs May didn't know about 4 months ago. I'm convinced that this is all part of some great plan that sees some capitalist utopia where everyone understands that there is no use in wasting money on anything (especially virtue, principles etc). Presently, I don't think we have the capacity to deal with anything as much as putting a cigarette out never mind dealing with an invasion or attack on any of our territories.

@Christopher 'HMS OCEAN is is past her 'efficient' and useful life.'
In the 1980's British servicemen were still being issued with 1938 pattern webbing.

The name Gingerbread says it all really about the left's covert dismantling of our society since the sixties. A sweet, innocent euphemism to camouflage an ugly reality and to encourage a phenomenon designed to corrode the basis of family life in this country. Regrettably I have to concede that, in this ambition it's been a huge success so much so that it's now celebrated in the triumphalism of the unashamedly politicised TV ad. for McCains Oven-ready Chips.

Build more prisons is one we get a lot. Its all very well building more but we don't seem to have enough staff to fit the current demand. Imagine if we actually banged up some of these terrorists instead of paying them million dollar jackpots? We would surely save a few quid there? As to 'that'd teach the b.....s' I won't ask you to clarify as I feel that once again you have strayed from the realms of polite discussion into your usual abusive rhetoric. I suppose filling in the blanks is part and parcel of any exchange with 'Alan'.

For all those 'remainers' who believe we can only survive inside the EU...... if you look at the way we have been 'closed down' as a powerful industrial and military concern since joining the EU, you will see the very reason why those who control the world today want to keep you and the country as helpless dependents.
They aren't daft, you are!

The reason for the run down of the armed forces exactly parallels the post WW2 run down of British industry and to some extent the British Empire . In order to fulfil the elites "Red House" and Bilderberg commitments we had to divest any vestige of pride or connections to our imperial and industrial past in case that pride proved to be a deplorable obstacle to convincing us to allow out elite jumping on the various supranational llucrative bandwagons that had been set rolling in the close of WW2.

Before the Soham murders and CRB (now DAB) checks. As the custodian of local offender records for the Probation service, I used to field background checks from local educational establishments and facilitate a response. Wherever the violent offender is studying in Oxford, they will have to assess the danger she may pose to their students. I dare say a DAB check is pretty pointless, given the publicity that the sentencer attracted to her case. She is 25. I would question the 'brilliance' of someone who isn't working at that age, in the same way that Thatcher called a man travelling on a bus aged 30, a failure. The educational institution has a duty of care. She cannot possibly be a student after the publicity. Only a judge could consider her fit and not worry about losing his or her job.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.